Abortionists Are Such Wonderfu People

[Diogenes]

D,

Please tell me what is the ONE essential condition for civilization.

Humans.

[Diogenes]

I am saying no such things. I am saying we can have civilization if we have a reasonable and agreed upon set of rules which people are expected to follow.

And the point of making rules you know will be flouted significantly is? I learned the answer to that in grade school when we studied Alcohol Prohibition. To reduce the respect for the law.

People who murder are not concerned with the law.

They teach in the military: never give an order you KNOW will not be followed. You lose command authority when you do that.

Laws are not commands, they are boundaries.

So if you can't do it by laws, would you consider doing it another way? I'll help.

This notion implies that murder is an option out of a selection. I disagree that anyone should negotiate murder. It is nonnegotiable.

The Left fears the government policies the Right prefers. The Right fears the government policies the Left prefers. I fear them both.

I have no need to fear the folly of men. I assume it.

M. Simon

About all government can do is to assure a modicum of public order. i.e. no abortions in the streets. Once you get away from the perpetrator-victim model of crime and go for willing seller - willing buyer type crime you need secret police to enforce it. And snitches. You start breaking down the bonds of trust between people. And you need a LOT of trust to make a $14 trillion economy work.

No, there are simpler ways.

"If one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on from the first tree I can find."

Andrew Jackson

[Diogenes]

Appeasement is not the correct answer when dealing with evil.

How about just holding it at bay until it fails? The abortion rate has been declining without laws.

It has been declining in SPITE of the laws. Who would have thought that those who think it is reasonable to kill their offspring would decline in power and influence?

Abortion is doomed. It is the monster that eats its own young.


The only thing left is for people to decide which side of history they want to be on.

[Diogenes]

As it is currently constituted, Abortion is indeed Darwin in action. People who are evolutionarily unfit to be parents (Those who could kill their offspring) are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

That is no argument for allowing it to continue. If Darwinism is allowed to be the basis of society, we would be bringing back slavery and other ancient barbarity.

The choice is willing rather than imposed. Essential difference.

Yes, let us not impose our morality on the slave owners. We should rather persuade them to willingly recognize the inherent right of human life.

Now suppose we let government rule reproduction. And suppose we get some idiots in (Holdren) who decide we have too many people and policy (not the authority) needs to be changed. What leg will you have to stand on?

False assertion. Prohibiting infanticide is not ruling reproduction. People are free to make their own decisions, but they should not be free in taking back a decision at the cost of a human life.

What happens when we have criminals running government? It can't happen here.

We get legal rulings that Abortion is a "right", when in fact it is a wrong.

Can you really stop stupid with laws? Never been done before. The experience doesn't seem to keep people from trying. The triumph of hope over experience. Say Hope and Change. Wasn't that popular a while back? What ever happened to it?

You cannot stop crime with Laws and Punishment, you can only reduce it to a minimum.

You understand the futility of gun prohibition...... Oh. I forgot. "This time it is different."

It's futility is not the primary reason to oppose it. I would be opposed to it if it were entirely possible, (which it may very well be in the future.) The primary reason for opposing gun prohibition is because it is a direct attack on heart of freedom.


Abortion serves NO noble purpose.

[Roger]

JC, I agree, this guy was operating outside the law for literally decades, totally criminal. And the state reacted with a wink and a nod until just recently. Ug.

Unfortunately the discussion we're having in the US has paralyzed actually solving the problem, which is partially many woman who use abortion as birth control, repeatedly. 500k abortions a year is out of line, education is needed, yes, birth control education. But an effective policy should be able to cut that number in half in the near term.

[Diogenes]

OK,

You want to do social engineering? Fine. Shouldn't you start gathering information on how humans actually behave?

The target population demographics. Culture. Economics. Motivations. etc.

And what if abortion is Darwin in action? i.e. people not fit for the current environment are not reproducing. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

As it is currently constituted, Abortion is indeed Darwin in action. People who are evolutionarily unfit to be parents (Those who could kill their offspring) are weeding themselves out of the gene pool.

That is no argument for allowing it to continue. If Darwinism is allowed to be the basis of society, we would be bringing back slavery and other ancient barbarity.

In the meantime, rats still eat their young when living conditions are too bad to raise young successfully. And they're still around.

When we have litters of six or more little rats per birthing, perhaps then human life can be disregarded as cavalierly as that of rats. At that point, we will probably be little more.

Not allowing the embryo to mature during a period in your life where you would not be able to support it properly, increases your chance to maintain or even increase the success-rate when raising your child a next time.

Yes, and killing half the people would yield their property to the other half. When the benefits of doing something gruesome are worth the loss of decency, then civilization will not last much longer.

Humanity has actually been down this road many times before.

[MSimon]

D,

Please tell me what is the ONE essential condition for civilization.

Humans.

Half right. Humans with enough food to eat.

I once went on a starvation diet (semi-involuntary) and you wouldn't believe how murderous my thoughts became as I got hungrier.

I thought "how interesting". Not every one has the same reaction.

The veneer is quite thin.

[MSimon]

D,

If you are really serious about ending abortion I have a sure fire way:

Proclaim loudly that you favor abortion because it is killing off the next generation of leftists. But of course it would be immoral to say that.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon

[TDPerk]

The North didn't BUY the slaves.

Is it so hard to comprehend that human life should not be held ransom to other people's money?

So you think war is cheap? That we didn't pay a ransom and a half to fight that war? Not to mention the piles of bodies?

I dunno D. You seem to have a lot of trouble THINKING about this. Emotion seems to cloud your reason. The same thing you claim the left does.

MSimon, I think you are being terribly pigheaded here, and not making a point that's worth anything. Paying people with lead at high velocity is no one's idea of a market purchase.

Although it is a transaction. The lead was going both ways, what was the South buying? Where is the bill of sale?

Abortions in the third trimester should be banned in general and assumed to be murder and always homicide until at the least a medical inquest shows otherwise--"patients" and "doctors" undertaking abortions of convenience at such a late stage of a pregnancy should be sentenced as any other murderer.

I do not pretend it will put an end to the practice any more than executions do put an end to other murders, but I think it is the right thing to do.

MSimon, I presume from your increasingly pedantic--to the point of being moronic--screeds against evidently prohibition of any sort that you in fact object to laws against murder, and are against the punishment of the same.

After all, it only permits the sanctimonious uselessly, preeningly to feel they have effectively opposed the practice, and has no other utility.

Right?

As for the $53,000.00, why should society pay for the bad choices of an individual? I could almost imagine you've lost sight of the importance of incentives.

[MSimon]

Abortions in the third trimester should be banned in general and assumed to be murder and always homicide until at the least a medical inquest shows otherwise--"patients" and "doctors" undertaking abortions of convenience at such a late stage of a pregnancy should be sentenced as any other murderer.

I wouldn't go that far. If it is happening I would not want to drive the practice underground. Makes it harder to monitor.

I'm comfortable (as one can be) with the current system.

So why not find out the reasons (other than medical) for third tri-mester abortions? And start fixing that? Instead of pushing people around, try to figure out how to change the environment in a positive way. And I'm going to assume here you are bright enough to figure out how to do it without calling on our great and wonderful government to monitor and oversee everything we do. And charge us for the privilege.

Jewish law allows even 3rd-tri if it is determined (as well as one can) that it would severely harm the mental health of the mother. And that is the Orthodox position. The Reform say - any reason.

Can you tell me which religion ought to prevail?

[MSimon]

Yes, and killing half the people would yield their property to the other half. When the benefits of doing something gruesome are worth the loss of decency, then civilization will not last much longer.

Humanity has actually been down this road many times before.

I differentiate between voluntary and involuntary - i.e. pillage.

The Japanese don't seem to want to reproduce. The Chinese don't allow reproduction.

And if some segments of America are not interested in reproducing? I'm all for them not reproducing.

The Chinese understood the essence of it: you save some one's life you are responsible for them. For good or ill I only want to be responsible for my own children and national defense. With a small nod to a very minimal safety net. Hungry people cause revolutions or worse. Bad for business.

[TDPerk]

I wouldn't go that far. If it is happening I would not want to drive the practice underground. Makes it harder to monitor.

So you are explicitly saying murder should be legal so it can be monitored better?

I'm comfortable (as one can be) with the current system.

Far too comfortable, I think. I feel you should be the more afflicted for it.

So why not find out the reasons (other than medical) for third tri-mester abortions?

Other than to aid in proving guilt, I am not as a first order of importance concerned for their motive for their crime.

And start fixing that?

There have always been and will always be murderers--and I suspect attempts to literally eliminate it will lead to such tyrannies as the for now only literary world of "pre-crime" and "thought-crime".

Instead of pushing people around, try to figure out how to change the environment in a positive way.

Trying murderers and punishing those found guilty is merely pushing people around?

And I'm going to assume here you are bright enough to figure out how to do it without calling on our great and wonderful government to monitor and oversee everything we do.

You can certainly assume what you like. Frankly, I assume your ego is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

And charge us for the privilege.

Naturally. I presume that even in your utopia that neither security nor liberty will be free. TANSTAAFL. The entire absence of government has never endured nor either for it's short lives has it produced any known increase in liberty. I am reasonably certain anarchy is in fact not stable and not conducive to liberty. But you flack it as hard as you please.

Jewish law allows even 3rd-tri if it is determined (as well as one can) that it would severely harm the mental health of the mother. And that is the Orthodox position.

Which is at variance with what I said how? There's that lack of reading comprehension I mentioned.

The Reform say - any reason.

Which is different from them endorsing murder how?

Can you tell me which religion ought to prevail?

I am not proposing that either should. I am proposing that what is colloquially murder to an all but exclusive degree should be treated as just that de jure.

[TDPerk]

"Which is at variance with what I said how?"

Should I presume meeting the Orthodox standard of "severe harm to the mental health of the mother" is so trivially easy it is tantamount to endorsing abortion on demand?

[MSimon]

"Which is at variance with what I said how?"

Should I presume meeting the Orthodox standard of "severe harm to the mental health of the mother" is so trivially easy it is tantamount to endorsing abortion on demand?

Not quite. But close.

In Jewish law there is no death penalty. It is on the books of course. But the requirements are stiff. (this is not one of the restrictions but it will give you an idea: thirty five witnesses to the actual crime.)

Even in the case of "some guy" kicks the mother in the belly and the baby dies. Not murder - even if you have the thirty-five witnesses.

I'm going to see what you really want: stop/reduce abortion or beating the miscreants severely about the head and shoulders.

So I will ask again: do you have a program I can support that does not require government involvement?

Letter To A Friend

There is a certain segment of the polity that is not interested in solving problems. What gets them off is punishing miscreants.

Example: my brother got killed in a drug war cross fire. Am I thirsting for revenge on the miscreants (30+ years and never found)? No. I'm working to end the cause.

I'm told I'm unusual in that respect.

In any case I do not want the government inspecting my mate's or my daughter's plumbing for infractions. And I want that so much that I'm willing to tolerate quite a lot of unfortunate behavior.

Because I saw how the "we will do anything we can to to stop the flow of drugs" worked out. Because of my shy bladder (since age two - ask my mother) problem I can't get a regular job. So I'm part of the invisible collateral damage of the drug war. Why would I wish to inflict more of that on anyone?

So let me ask you again. Are you smart enough to devise a solution that doesn't require government guns?

[MSimon]

If abortion is murder how come I see aprox. zero calls for the death penalty for the person soliciting it?

The consensus among conservatives: misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor and the woman goes free. Under what theory of murder is the person who solicits the crime not guilty? And misdemeanor manslaughter type penalties for premeditated murder? Really?

I'd say that was pretty good proof that even most conservatives (despite the trash talk) do not consider abortion murder. Even the few that would provide for the death penalty for the mother say it is politically infeasible at this time.

Some times I think Conservatives spend a lot of time lying to themselves in order to maintain the utopia in their heads. Kind of like Liberals.

=====

If we can get doctors totally under government control I think it may be possible to prevent abortions. Which is why I favor ObamaCare. Don't you? It is a good step towards single payer. Only with total government control do we have any chance of stamping out this vile practice.

Are you with me?